And if you have a world class player in one position who is going to be left at home for a specialist unproven player?
If your choice is Casey versus Crowley? Or Casey versus Earls?
Do you bring the just in case an incredible series of unfortunate events results in BOTH selected scrum halves being injured 72 hours before a match? Or do you bring someone who might bring a moment of magic and win the quarter final for you?
The 3rd choice 9 be it Casey or whoever isnt exactly unproven. If a player is "world class" they will be in the squad already. No world class players will be left out bar injury.
One injury is hardly an incredible series of unfortunate events. That would leave you with 1 SH for an entire game.
The guy you replace Casey with is less likely to be in the 23 than Casey, almost by definition.
Sheehan out for 6-8 weeks says Rory o Connor
QF weekend of the 14th? So 8 weeks away. I think you have to take him.
I agree... Do you also take Kelleher? I would.
Tbh Rob Herring and Tom o Toole aren't a humongous drop down from Sheehan.
Of course we're a better team with Sheehan on the pitch, but we don't transform into a mediocre team with any of the alternatives.
He's a loss for sure, but not a disastrous one.
An injury within 72 hours before kick-off for a SH to be completely ruled out of a match, especially during a tournament setting where training workload is light, is very unlikely.
For then the remaining SH to get injured during the match to the point where he is ruled out would absolutely be an incredible series of unfortunate events.
we have to
he's an alien
Worse than I'd hope but not World Cup ending. Still - a risk to take him.
Shite.
The drop off from Sheehan and Kelleher in core hooker duties is not much it’s the other things they offer that would be missed.
Or, the previously spelled out scenario, where a SH gets injured for 2 weeks, say. You then either have to replace him or go 2 games with 1 SH for 80 mins.
It's not gonna happen.
But we're opening up some of our actual world class players to a much higher likelihood of injury by needing to play against Tonga/Romania so we can have the luxury of a third string SH
He's young, he'll be back in time for the SA game
They will be regardless because 1) The coaches will want them match sharp and 2) It's a 33 man squad. The numbers don't stack up for what you're asking for. Some of the first team will have to play in those Tonga and Romania games.
Its far easier to cover other positions than the specialist positions. you will have 9 front rows, 3 scrummies. theyre not luxuries. its a gamble that can easily fall down if you dont have it and cover in many other positions is far easier to cover within the squad.
only 2 scrum halves mean theyre involved in every game. you cant just rest them. that could seriously backfire so why risk it for maybe a 3rd choice backrow/winger where cover is far more flexible. doesnt make sense.
And as I said, if the backup SH gets injured then you just send them home and bring in #3. Only scenario where this is a problem is JGP, which only adds to the unfortunateness of the series of events required.
I'd have no issue sending the team with 1 SH for the Tonga or Romania matches in the very unlikely scenario a SH picks up an injury. In the unlikely event the SH gets injured during the match then one of the backs would be fine closing out the match.
By the time we get to the SA game we could easily swap in a SH with whoever picks up an injury amongst the players unlikely to play again.
Yes, of course some will but you're enforced to expose one additional player to these likely very physical matches to have your luxury of a 3rd SH
Explain how that fits in to the narrative of bringing 2 scrum half's ????
What if it's your first choice SH, and the get a niggle that will see them miss two key group games, but be available for the QF? You send them home, they can't come back. It's a massive risk. If you've got someone in the squad who isn't a specialist 9, but can cover there, then sure, but it's not worth the risk of going with 2 otherwise.
Having to play a scrumhalf for 80 minutes is already far from ideal.
Why do you need to fully rest a SH? It is the least physically demanding position for collisions and it isn't like there isn't already breaks built into the format.
As I keep saying and no one has yet disagreed with, is far more of a gamble to be enforced to play an additional one of POM/Beirne/Ryan/Doris/VdF or back 3 players against Tonga and Romania.
Sheehan injured is a blow but I think we're well stocked. Herring is a fine player. Stewart too really impressed me. I don't think it's a massive drop off, still a loss mind.
Absolutely, but it shouldnt be the difference in winning or losing to Tonga and Romania
its also fairly unlikely that both your starting hooker and the replacement would get injured in the same game leading to moving someone unfamiliar with the role into the position
it happened though because unlikely events still happen sometimes.'needing' a third 9 for anything other than rotation is unlikely, but given the squad size it makes way more sense than bringing someone who is one injury away from the first choice matchday squad rather than someone who is two/three injuries away
To lose your first string SH is a very unlikely event but really straight forward to solve depending on when they pick up that 2 week injury
But that one additional player will need some game time to get match sharp anyways.
Casey is 1 injury from the starting 23. The guys you're suggesting to replace him with are likely a number of injuries away from the starting 23. Aside from anything else, it's better to have Casey training with the squad.
Edit: What sprucemoose said.
Not a chance. His race is run. Awful injury profile. No way he can go if kelleher goes. Kelleher will be injured in short order also.
I'm pretty certain all the posters disagreeing with you, disgaree with you about this...
By your example that means you should have a 3 hooker in every matchday squad because it might happen.
If you train up a back or two to be competent at SH then it shouldn't be an issue - they should be already preparing for this incase both SH get removed from any match.
Having a 3rd hooker in the WC squad makes far more sense than 3 SH, due to the physical demands of the position
So you really believe a SH is as or more likely to get injured during training or a match than a Lock or Backrow?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/92ec68194a3f4c0d45091ea3a5d3ed2f.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6081e4655739e0887aaf16222f88b015.svg)
